GMB Professional drivers .

A members concerns in relation to interference on Insurance from those who don’t understand.
Posted on March 30, 2016

A members email to us and further comments from us:

I am writing to you to express my concerns in regards to Mr Wes Streeting (Labour Ilford North MP) Operator based Hire & Reward insurance proposal for PHV drivers.

The Bill was submitted via the ten minute rule on Tuesday the 22nd March 2016, more info can be found on the links below.

http://www.wesstreeting.org/wes_in_drive_to_improve_taxi_regulation

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/taxiandprivatehirevehicleoperatorsregulation.html

My concern is that this proposal will impact self employed drivers and small operators, I work with multiple operators at any given time and such proposal will not allow me to do so if this proposal is enacted. This proposal will restrict me to working for just one operator due to the terms and conditions of such insurance policy.

An Operator based H&R insurance policy will choke small Operators & self employed drivers, this proposal will also empower multinational/big operators even more as such operators would be able to buy H&R insurance at discount and charge PHV drivers whatever they like. Addison Lee currently charges drivers £60 per week for their Fleet Hire & Reward insurance and makes huge profits every year from such insurance policy; the driver has to pay hefty deposit of up to £3,000 and does not accumulate a penny of no claims discount on such policy.

This type of policy hinders the driver as he/she won’t be able to accumulate any NCD. This will also force the driver to work for one operator which goes against the nature of self employment.

There are other implications as well for example what will self-employed drivers do when he or she is kicked off a circuit by an operator at any given time. Operators kick drivers off their circuits all the time for whatever reason they deem fit and such proposal will give operators even more power over the driver, which can lead to even more exploitation and bullying.

I am amazed at the fact that a Labour MP worked on this proposal with a company which funds the Tory party and ignored the implications this will have on working class people like me. The bill does not resolve any of the issues PHV drivers face on a daily basis. Mr Streeting mentioned how Taxi drivers are struggling to make a good living and yet failed to mention the fact PHV drivers are also struggling to make a living let alone a good living. PHV drivers are exploited and bullied by operators and yet politicians take no notice of this fact, drivers nationwide are earning below minimum wage.

We may add the following:

The idea that such an insurance even if was possible to use could cover owner drivers and satisfy Lease, Finance and Hire companies is impossible.

Firstly there is no way a driver can suddenly enact a insurance cover for the times he is not working for a fleet.

Temporary cover is not only prohibitive in cost but leaves a driver in a financially vulnerable position.

Operators Like Addison Lee and Uber would love this as it would squeeze out more competition and create a profit stream on higher premiums based on admin and other costs.

If a fleet operator charges drivers £60 per week that’s over £3120 a year.

With some drivers with NCD paying £1200 PA do you think they will accept increased costs?

Com Cab and Radio Taxis would be forced to this market too as they are considered fleets.

In probability this would also spread to Gett and Hailo as theoretically they are fleet apps like Uber.

We have had multiple cases of deposits taken from drivers and never returned either through petty claims or in some cases closure of the company with no return only for the company directors to restart as an other operator.

On this count TFL have failed to act against the perpetrators.

Following GMB’s response for an annual policy which is mandatory for licensing we expect fraud to reduce although we will ask TFL to mandate insurers advise them of Private hire policies that lapse or are cancelled on vehicles so that the licences can be removed to not risk the public.

We hope that appropriate no claims discounts will bring down costs for all drivers overpaying for their cover.

Plan insurance are working on TIC a checking system to improve detection.

A strict Ply for hire definition is required too.

Above all we must stress that Politicians playing with private hire and taxi as if it is a toy when they have no instructions and will only cause more damage as has happened with the recent amendments to the Licensing act.

 http://goo.gl/fsgF3V
-----------------------------------------------
DERRY

  A petition branding the imposition of taximeters and printers an “unfair tax for Derry taxi drivers” has attracted over 100 supporters online.

John Bradley, who launched the petition just over a week ago, complains that a raft of changes to taxi regulations that will take effect from May include what will amount to a “£600 tax for the meter installation in vehicles.”

It’s an overhead drivers can’t afford, he says.

He argues that taxi women and men will have to raise fares to pay for the maintenance of the installed system.

He states: “Taxi drivers put in 50 plus hours per week to make ends meet. They work hard. They deserve to be treated fairly. Sign this petition to help raise awareness of this unfair tax on hard workers.”

Under the new rules Class A and Class B taxis must have a DoE approved taximeter and printer installed by May 31 and they must be programmed to operate within a new maximum fare structure.

Officially announcing the changes in February, Mr Durkan said: “I am modernising and improving the regulations for the taxi industry including licensing requirements, accessibility standards and installation of taximeters and imposition of maximum fares.”

He added: “In effect, these changes will mean that people in the North will get a much better taxi service. My Department will now write to all taxi drivers and operators to advise them of the changes which will be introduced as part of the implementation of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.”

Many of the supporters of Mr Bradley’s petition disagree, saying the regulations newly penalise drivers.

Diane Tierney states: “Taximen have been trying to earn a living for years and are being held to ransom by taxi firms who are the ones profiting while the drivers do all the work. Fair pay for fair work.”

Kathy Johnston states: “My husband is a taxi driver and already we [find] it hard enough to make ends meet. Especially with five children to support too.”

Warren Macfarland states: “The government are forcing these charges on taxi drivers, these expenses should be subsidised.”

Bob McLaughlin states: “Taxi men need a break, meters are fair enough but why punish the drivers? They are only doing a job.”

http://goo.gl/GFaCmI
------------------------------------

UBER CANADA crossed a line when it submitted a draft bylaw to the city’s licensing division, says the head of a taxi lobby group.

Next week, municipal licensing staff will release the much-anticipated proposed regulations for ride-sharing services and the taxi industry. City council is set to vote on the staff recommendations in May.

“I don’t think councillors are going to like the concept of a foreign, private sector company writing the legislation to staff,” Rita Smith, executive director of the Toronto Taxi Alliance, said Tuesday.

Uber Canada spokeswoman Susie Heath said it is “standard practice” for stakeholders to provide input to a government drawing up new laws.
“Uber and all parties involved in the ground transportation industry were invited to make submissions on regulations for consideration by ML&S, (Municipal Licensing and Standards),” Heath wrote in email.

“We regularly share examples of ridesharing regulations with regulators to help them better understand how jurisdictions around the world are regulating ridesharing.”
Smith said submitting a “full deck of pre-written legislation” was not standard practice.
“I have never seen this level of detail before, at any level of government,” she said. “This has been Uber’s stealth method of operations in many other jurisdictions.”

The Uber document was included in a batch of emails Smith obtained through a freedom of information request.

Last August, Chris Schafer, Uber Canada’s public policy manager, sent an email to licensing executive director Tracey Cook that included a “City of Toronto Transportation Network Company Services Bylaw,” prepared by Uber.
According to the document, Uber wants the city to set up a separate category for itself — called Transportation Network Company, or TNC.
“TNCs or TNC drivers are not common carriers or commercial motor vehicles (as defined in the Highway Traffic Act of the Province of Ontario),” the Uber document states.

“A TNC driver shall not be required to register the vehicle such driver uses for TNC services as a commercial or for hire vehicles.”
Cook said Tuesday that the city will be doing the writing of any bylaw, but has “welcomed input from all stakeholders, including through a dedicated email account. We have received written submissions from numerous taxi and limousine stakeholders.

“We take all submissions into consideration — no one submission carries more weight than another.”
The taxi industry is adamant the only way cabbies can compete with Uber is if regulations are identical, including the requirement that drivers have costly commercial insurance.

“Unfortunately for Uber, no matter what by-law the city passes, insurance companies view all transportation of passengers for compensation exactly the same,” Smith wrote in an email.

“Toronto can pass by-laws until the cows come home; they cannot make insurance companies insure these cars. And they won’t.”

Smith said taxi industry representatives who attended an licensing “stakeholder” meeting last month considered it a “sham . . . Perhaps that is because MLS had already written its report based on Uber’s desired legislation.”

On Tuesday, Uber Canada launched a campaign asking Uber supporters to urge councillors to support “smart” and “progressive” regulations.

http://goo.gl/aibIX7
-------------------------------------
 NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City's taxi authority plans new rules for drivers that will impose tougher penalties for sexually charged comments and contact with passengers amid growing concern about harassment.

The Taxi and Limousine Commission, which licenses about 150,000 drivers of yellow cabs and other for-hire vehicles such as Uber [UBER.UL] and Lyft, wants to curb unwanted communication and touching as the number of drivers has significantly grown.

The TLC said the regulations are meant to clear up any confusion about what defines sexual harassment as more drivers enter the industry.

The behavior is already prohibited under a broad definition against threats, harassment or abuse, but the commission's goal is clear up any confusion about what defines sexual harassment said TLC spokesman Allan Fromberg.

The agency plans to debate the proposal at an April 21 meeting.


"This rule amendment would provide clear definitions of sexual harassment and unwanted sexual contact, which would help TLC prosecution enforce its rules and protect our passengers," he said in a statement.

The new rules would also ban drivers from commenting on the appearance and gender of their passengers, as well as expressing desire to enter into any relationship.

Sexual harassment offenders, under the proposal, would face a $1,000 fine, three points on a driver's license and a 30-day suspension or revocation, while sexual contact would carry a $2,000 fine and a mandatory revocation.

http://goo.gl/Zmfgsk